My Social Media saturation could be caused by a poor business model

The past few weeks I have been in a crazy roller coaster preparing a public launch for a new service. It’s a lot of work, there are so many little and big details to take care of, a team of people working day and night to get things done. It’s a lot of fun too.

Last night, while I was finishing of some work, I looked back a little and found that my on-line behavior of the past weeks has changed a lot. I’ve spent less time on (social media) services that I am subscribed to. I haven’t been in Friendfeed discussions, Twittered less, Google reader is hopelessly out of control, and services like social median, twine, Facebook (I rarely use it, but people do try to friend me all the time) and many more that ping me for my attention haven’t gotten any attention at all.

The funny thing is that I have been interacting more than ever in this period. I have met and talked with many people spread around different time zones. But the way we met was very traditional. I used physical meetings, phone, skype, and (god forbid) old-fashioned e-mail. These weren’t all work related meetings. Actually, I’m thinking half of them had nothing to do with the work we’re facing. But because I’m spending a lot of hours working I find I spent less time on-line talking to “friends” in all kinds of social networks.

It looks like I have reached a social media saturation point. Balancing life and work, pleasure and profession, off-line and on-line, I find that many of the web 2.0 services we early adaptors boast about aren’t all that important. It seems to me that, unless you are making a living in this tech world as a blogger, tech evangelist or whatever, many of these services do not provide enough value to justify using them all the time. There isn’t a need for me to enroll in yet another Twitter variant called Yammer. Even if they did win some prize in some tech meeting. There isn’t really a need for me to check all tech discussions going on over at Friendfeed as these discussions rarely bring something new. There isn’t a need to follow TechMeme and other popular tech aggregation news sites as the news echoes its way into our lives.

That doesn’t mean that web 2.0 services are a waist of time. But at the same time, a lot of those services do not add real value to my personal life. If they did, I’d sure be spending more time on them. It might be great to be able to meet up with thousands of friends over on any social networking site. But I find meeting people I respect, family, friends, and professional colleagues more important. If I have to choose, due to time constraints for example, I notice now that I choose to narrow the circle of people that I interact with. And that is opposite to what social networks want us to do. They want us to widen our circle, as having a large network is more important to the service provider than providing value to the individual user.

It turns out I ended up using services that provide me, the individual user, value. It’s the problem of most social networks. As they all seem to choose the path of free ad-based business models they end up providing me less value and having a focus on enlarging the network. Most web 2.0 services have turned into a playground that way. They are fun to visit, but really not all that important. I love amusement parks, but I don’t need to spend every day or hour there. Maybe that is why “old fashioned” e-mail, or Skype, the place where I store my family photo’s, and my mobile phone are so much more important to me.

It’s because these services were build to provide me value, and monetize that value. Instead of web 2.0 services that offer me everything for free to lower the threshold of joining. Those services monetize the network with ads, not the value they provide me. That’s a bad choice. The threshold to join is low, but the threshold to ignore or leave is even lower. And because of that the service provider needs to focus even more on enlarging the network, making it easy on me to ignore the service. A catch 22 I’d rather not be in if I was a service provider.

About vanelsas

See my about page, https://vanelsas.wordpress.com/about/ ;-)
This entry was posted in business model, free business model, social networks and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to My Social Media saturation could be caused by a poor business model

  1. erwin blom says:

    You are working your ass off for your startup and don’t have time for anything else. That is the reason for your behaviour, nothing else mate!😉

  2. Pingback: Wow There Is A World Beyond Social Media - WinExtra

  3. @erwin, well, in that case I haven’t gotten my point accross. You are right, I’m working hard right now. But because of that I have to make choices on what I find important to do and what not. And guess what? I still use a lot of services but the ones I’m paying less attention to are the ones that turn out to be playful but in the end less meaningful.
    It made me realise what I think is important in a service and what not. Hence the post😉

  4. Pingback: How Not To Be Liked On FriendFeed - WinExtra

  5. Alexander,

    I reflected on a similar topic on September 8th and wondered if social media was really a passion of mine.

    http://vineberg.blogspot.com/2008/09/social-media-is-it-passion.html

    These days I tend to utilize social media to promote my personal brand and the brands of my clients. I stay LinkedIn and Facebooked, I enjoy tweeting and participating in online conversations on Twitter and Jaiku, and I read and participate in blogs. But my closest and dearest friends and family members don’t embrace social media like my business friends and colleagues do.

    So like you, I seek balance between my online and offline lives. In late August I avoided Twitter and missed more than 10,000 Tweets. Maybe I took time off because I had reached a saturation point, as you point out in your thoughtful post.

    In those two weeks, I missed ideas, thoughts by great Bay Area pundits, and failed to click links to interesting white papers and articles. Yet, my life was enriched by close personal interactions with offline friends and family that ensued those two weeks.

    And somehow the world kept spinning and when I opened Twitter again, everyone was Tweeting away. The social media pundits were promoting their trades. The bloggers were promoting their posts. The thought leaders were promoting their brands.

    You’re right that it’s all about finding balance between offline and online, technology and spirit, real and hype. When all is said and done, I am more deeply nurtured and satisfied by the offline, spiritual and personal worlds.

  6. “I find that many of the web 2.0 services we early adaptors boast about aren’t all that important. It seems to me that, unless you are making a living in this tech world as a blogger, tech evangelist or whatever, many of these services do not provide enough value to justify using them all the time.”

    Welcome back to the majority!

    “Those services monetize the network with ads, not the value they provide me. “

    It’s almost as if you’re suggesting there’s a trade-off between value and ads. I would point out that regardless of whether a site/service displays ads or not, their success/failure is going to be based on the perceived value among their user base. There are many examples of hugely popular free sites that show ads AND, by virtue of their popularity, demonstrate value to their users.

  7. Hi Jordan, thanks for drpooing bye😉

    I may have been a bit too general when it comes to the value of advertisement. What I usually find is that advertisement is disconnected from user value. So Facebook shows advertisement but in that context it doesn’t provide me any value at all. Even if there are 100Mln Facebook users. You could argue they find the advertisements valuable. I would argue that they simply ignore it, just like they would ignore it on TV.
    And taking that one step further. What if Facbook stopped serving ads and went on to a subscription based model? How many users would remain at Facebook and be willing to pay for it? I’m guessing a lot of people would not be willing to pay. And the reason for it is that Facebook has monetized the network, instead of focusing on providing user value. If they had chosen a business model that monetized user value, they would maybe have less, but more loyal and passionate customers😉

  8. Pingback: Facebook-Like Platform: Is IBM Running Out of Ideas? « Thoughtpick Blog

  9. Pingback: Wow There Is A World Beyond Social Media — Shooting at Bubbles

  10. Pingback: How Not To Be Liked On FriendFeed — Shooting at Bubbles

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s